GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. Q.C. PETROLEUM LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 1.3.1994 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 279 of 1994 making the rule absolute.

(2.) Respondent as writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging Memo No. 357/AP/GROUP-10/93-94/10762-CUS dated 5.1.1994 issued on behalf of the Collector of Customs in pursuance of Memo No. 7(1) CUSTOM-1/19/09 dated 5.1.1994 issued by the National Board of Revenue refusing to discharge their consignment of High Speed Diesel till production of no objection letter issued either by the Energy and Mineral Resources Division or by the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation. Their case, in short, is that in pursuance of the import policy announced by the Government they imported 16,315,565 metric tons of High Speed Diesel from Singapore. The said consignment arrived at the Chittagong port on 28.12.1993 and duties were assessed by the Customs authority on submission of the bills of entry and other import documents Part of the assessed duty was paid on 1.1.1994. But the discharge of the said consignment was refused by the customs till no objection letter for such discharge was obtained and produced from the above authority. Their further case is that restriction on import of petroleum was withdrawn in the Import Policy Orders 1991-1993 and 1993-1995 and the petroleum products were placed in the free list after it was withdrawn from the control list. So there was no restriction for import of the High Speed Diesel by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondents therefore imported the said consignment on prior intimation to the government and on observance of all necessary formalities in this regard and the relevant Ministry did not raise any objection. Due to the unreasonable and illegal order of the aforesaid authorities discharge of the said consignment is being held up and the vessel in question is incurring demurrage.

(3.) The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources and the Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation contested the rule issued in the writ petition mainly relying on the provision of section 4 of the Bangladesh Petroleum Act, 1974 asserting that the writ petitioners were debarred from importing the said consignment without entering into any petroleum agreement with the Government as envisaged under section 4(2) of the said Act inasmuch as, according to them, the expression "Petroleum Operation" in section 4(2) also includes importation of Petroleum Product.